home
RSS
Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
Bill Nye and Ken Ham will debate the origins of life Tuesday at the Creation Museum.
February 3rd, 2014
01:15 PM ET

Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism

Editors note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on February 4 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be livestreamed at CNN.com at 7 pm ET, and Piers Morgan Live will interview Ham and Nye on Tuesday at 9 ET.

WATCH TUESDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream1.html

Opinion by Ken Ham, special to CNN

(CNN) - Public debates on evolution and creation have become increasingly rare. Several hundred well-attended debates were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades.

So I look forward to a spirited yet cordial debate on Tuesday with Bill Nye, the "Science Guy" of television fame.

I also look forward to the opportunity to help counter the general censorship against creationists' view of origins. While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution.

Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science.

As a former science instructor, I have appreciated the useful television programs that he hosted and produced, especially when he practiced operational science in front of his audience.

He and I both recognize the wonderful benefits that observational, operational science has brought us, from cell phones to space shuttles. But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory.

For students, the evolution-creation discussion can be a useful exercise, for it can help develop their critical thinking skills.

MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm Debating Ken Ham 

Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them.

Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations.

Nye, the host of a popular TV program for children, should welcome a scrutiny of evolution in the classrooms.

As evolution-creation issues continue to be in the news - whether it relates to textbook controversies or our debate - there is an increasingly bright spotlight on the research activities of thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide who have earned doctorates and are creationists.

On our full-time staff at Answers in Genesis, we have Ph.D.s in astronomy, geology, biology, molecular genetics, the history of science, and medicine. Yes, creationists are still a small minority in the scientific community, but they hold impressive credentials and have made valuable contributions in science and engineering.

I remember the time I spoke at a lunchtime Bible study at the Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington. I was thrilled to meet several scientists and engineers who accept the book of Genesis as historical and reject Darwinian evolution. They shared with me that a belief in evolution had nothing to do with their work on the Hubble Space Telescope. Why should our perspective about origins be censored?

Our young people and adults should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution.

It’s an important debate, for what you think about your origins will largely form your worldview. If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority.

Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority our infallible creator and his word, the Bible over the words of fallible humans.

Ken Ham is founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis (USA) and founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The views expressed in this column belong to Ham.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Culture wars • Evolution • Opinion • Science

soundoff (4,336 Responses)
  1. Bill Pen

    Not all Christians who believe in the Genesis account agree with creationists on a number of important points, including the length of the creative day. And for Mr. Logical: God did not create imperfect creatures. Man was created perfect and with free will. Thus he was not a robot forced to serve his creator. He chose to violate the one restriction placed on him, bringing sin and imperfection on all his offspring (this occurred before Eve bore children).

    February 4, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      How can imperfection result from perfection? If I am a perfect god, then nothing I can do can turn out imperfectly. It is logically impossible.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
      • Raphel

        How can something be created out of nothing?

        February 4, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          If you are saying that something cannot come from nothing, then are you saying that god was created?

          February 4, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
    • stephaneetienne

      And where is the evidence for that? I am not against any belief but I just don't see why I would believe in stuff that has no supporting evidence. If I did, I would have to believe in anything, not really practical nor useful.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
    • Kevin Harris

      Bill, I don't think we can say that man was created "perfect" but he, and the rest of creation, was created "good" according to the text. Perfection seems to be an on-going process (that free will certainly facilitates). And I REALLY agree that not all Christians hold to a "Young Earth" perspective. That is my main problem with Ken Ham and I think he does more harm than good because of it.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
  2. Joe Lansing

    The last comment by Mr. Ham is laughable sophistry. What is his source of certainty that there is an infallible creator – from the Bible authored by another group of fallible humans!!

    February 4, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Madtown

      The bible is 100% truth. It says so in the bible.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
  3. Nina

    You realize that there are more than two sides to this issue, no? It's not just Christian creationism vs science. Why have you not invited to this debate Hindu theologians to argue that the reality we perceive is merely Maya, an illusion, and that we are all part of a structured set of systems governed by a hierarchy of deities that are themselves simply an aspect of a unifying cosmic spirit known as Brahma and that we are his dream.

    What about representing the Sikh belief that the world is both transitory and real? Or the Mahayana Buddhist belief that we mistakenly believe ourselves to be independently real when in fact all objects are conceived from the mind and our mind is our misperception of our true nature.

    What about the Aztec belief that the world was created when Nanahuatl bravely threw himself into a sacrificial fire?

    Science and religion are fundamentally different. But if you are going to challenge evolution with religious beliefs, i don't know how you can claim it's fair to teach only a Judeo Christian view of creationism when there are so many equally valid ideas about origin.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • michaellocher

      Well, Nina, the debate is framed thusly because it's Christian-themed creationsim – and not Hindu cosmology – threatening to intrude upon science education in this country.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
  4. Ken Hamm

    This is Ken Ham. I just want to create a debate over something that has no reason to be discussed anymore. My next debates will include: Is the earth flat? and Do witches really control our minds? Seriously, this is a waste of time, sorry people but God didnt create life in 6 days, if you want to belief in a higher being thats fine and your choice but dont go all creationism on me

    February 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • jim

      Really, who wants to listen to a debate between a religions faith in the creation of life and what has been discovered by physical science,history and anthropology?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
  5. LeafMan

    Now we know why Ham is a FORMER science teacher. Even his letter is full of holes.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
  6. michaellocher

    Religious critics of science and evolution often scientists of being "dogmatic," which is the height of irony, of course.

    Religion is dogmatic by definition. It's inherent to the theology of traditional religions (like Christianity) that intellectual exercises and scientific inquiry are less-useful means of embracing truth than the fixed, immovable dogma of scripture.

    On the other hand, if you're curious as to how non-dogmatic science is, simply compare science textbooks from 1920, 1950, 1980, and 2000. It's science, not religion, that thrives on criticism, rigorous inquiry, self-examination, and free thinking.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • Garlyn

      The problem is Science has locked opinions by saying "Real" science is peer reviewed. So if there is a "science" they don't like, they will not peer review it and it will not be considered valid research even if it is.

      So they lock people out and only allow deviations they accept to be reviewed and become "science" or "Valid science".

      February 4, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • JustRight

        Thats a ridiculous statement. If you have any replicable finding you can find a journal to publish it in no matter how much it flies in the face of current understanding.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
      • visitor

        Well yes that can happen. But creationism (and it's phony sibling Intelligent Design) have been very very well covered.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
      • Johnny

        That is complete baloney. The person who writes the report requests peer review. The scientific method is designed so that other scientist should accept your request whether to disprove it or to prove it.There is no vast conspiracy. I'm so tired of people propagating misinformation. Please go look up, from a credible source, information on the scientific method before you spout lies.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
      • Dog o matic

        Wow, that has got to be one of the dumbest comments. Who do you propose should review the reviewers? Creationist?

        February 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
  7. Snow

    What I find really wrong about creationists/christians is, they harp so much about persecution when someone as much as raises a point against their religion, but they themselves have no qualms about making fun of other religions of the world.

    Is that tolerance for them?
    Is that respect for them?
    Is that what their god teaches them? if so, there has to be something inhuman about it.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
  8. Mr Logical

    One comment and question for the religious out there (whom I respect and have no ill will toward). The bible in one very very brief paragraph is as follows: live a good moral life as defined by the bible and you will go to heaven and live forever. Question: If God is the omnipotent one and the creator, then why play this game? Why not create the exact type of human being that you want who will freely choose Christ? If God is the creator, why create imperfect beings in the first place? Why go through all of that mess? Just create exactly what you want as creator and be done with it. If not, then the Creator is really creating a board game of sorts and is watching all of us struggle to find the truth. Why?

    I'm asking a serious question that none of my religious friends can answer. And I'd love an answer that would turn me back into a believer.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      I'm an atheist, but I know the bible, and it says nothing at all like that. That is not the "overall message" at all. The overall message is dark and disgusting and completely arbitrary and unfair. God doesn't care about good deeds one bit.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
      • Joseph Stalin

        A Respected Rabbi once said 'It says nowhwere in the bible that God is nice nor that he is fair.'

        February 4, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Umm.....No.....It says the opposite. That's what I just said in my post....

          February 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Captain, Stalin is agreeing with you.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
    • Bart

      I struggle with the same notion of "original sin", I just can't fathom that we are all born guilty and must repent. It gives the church a position of power over people, that's all.

      A great sermon I heard recently was on the Holy Trinity – God the Creator (creator of the world), the Redeemer (of souls, through Jesus) and the Sustainer (helping us to survive the troubles of this life). Don't just accept the words, teachings, etc of others as the one and only truth – find the part of your faith that rings true to you and go from there. For me, the Creator part is a non-starter; I'll take Genesis as figurative, the best they had to work with 200 years ago Like lots of others of who are adding to this blog...

      February 4, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      Actually, what the Bible says is that no one can live a good and moral life. That's what the 10 Commandments were for – not that man actually COULD obey the commandments, but rather to show him his level of depravity. In actuality, the Bible doesn't say a lot of WHY God chooses to do certain things, and the WHY of God giving men the ability to sin is one of those why's that aren't answered.

      We do get a glimpse in scripture though, but it requires a paradigm shift... You see, in Ephesians 3:9-11, we see that the eternal purpose of God was that He created everything so that He might redeem it. And He did so for His glory. Indeed, it almost seems that the salvation of man was an afterthought, but everything that exists, exists for His glory. "In Him we live, and move, and have our being..."

      So, the redeemed will forever give glory to God for His mercy, and the reprobate will forever bring glory to God for His justice.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
      • Mr Logical

        Thanks for your thoughts. Although, if God is as you suggest, I'm not sure I want to meet him/her! Sounds like a very self-centered being.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        The first four commandments say nothing about morality. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out murder and theft are harmful to society. We don't need a god to tell us that. Besides, your god has committed so many immoral acts, that I am much, much better than he is.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
    • FromADad

      Mr. Logical, not sure if you are a Father, but I am and I sometimes relate the way God feels about me (His child) the same way I relate to my children. I can tell you as a father of three that there is something about having your children love you unconditionally because you are their father, you love them unconditionally, and it is a choice they make on their own. If God made everyone perfect, made His existence abundantly clear (like only bad things happened to bad people) then what REAL choice would we have to love or to not love Him? I believe (and I certainly don't speak for any Christians) that He does want us to choose to love him not to be "forced" to love him. I pity the Wealthy parents sometimes, not because money is evil, but do they truly know their children, or anyone, really loves them? Jesus said something like "Blessed are those who have not seen, but yet believe." at the last supper.... (don't quote me on that, but something along those lines)... .So let me know if that helps at all.. Like you, I respect everyone's feelings and thoughts, I wish you peace....

      February 4, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
      • Mr Logical

        Thanks for the different point of view (I mean from a parent's perspective). My wife and I have been married 30 years but we were never able to have children so I can't say that I truly understand what you mean. But I have a very good idea. And that makes sense. But, if one is truly the creator, one could still create humans that would ultimately make the choice to accept Jesus. As creator, you could even make humans that sinned for some time and then turned their lives around. As creator, you can do anything you want. What you are saying is that our creator really does want to create this board game whereby He creates humans but then watches them struggle with right and wrong. And when all is said and done, He will torture those who choose the wrong way (I grew up a Baptist where, if you are not saved, you are tortured for eternity). That simply makes no sense to me. Why torture someone forever? Why not simply let them stay dead?

        Regardless, thanks very much for your post. It was intriguing.

        February 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • FromADad

          Yea, it has me thinking... I've always looked at it the opposite way, I think the way He did it was almost perfect (I would not have let those mosquitoes on the Arc though)... In a perfect world, no war, no pain, no misery... there would be little or no doubt. I'm not sure you can have unconditional choice to love Him without doubt. If you look at the life and death of Jesus, could you make it up any better? The Jews expecting a King to rule and set them free, but instead His message of "Love your enemy, Love your neighbor as yourself" are you kidding me? Even His disciples had doubt... Well if they had doubt I'm not worried about my doubt.... So it comes back for you that you would have done it different... Maybe so, not sure I would have changed much.. I have had lots of pain in my life and lots of joy in my life... It hurts me deeply to see my children go through pain, but the joy I feel when they are happy, loving me unconditionally, well there isn't much I would trade or change for that...I have to believe He is the same....

          February 4, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
    • Michael

      God did create man who could freely choose God, but in order to be freely then one must be able to reject God . In choosing to reject God, man exercised his free will. You may not know the rest of the story.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
      • Mr Logical

        The question is why? Humans, then, are simply pawns on a chessboard that the creator is watching and enjoying. And when the creator decides he's had enough, he will send Jesus back down to earth to rule. Why? And the folks who didn't make the right decision will be tortured forever. Why? What sense does all of this make? Put it another way...if you wanted a great dog and had the ability to create one, why wouldn't you do it? The other option is to buy 10 dogs and train all of them and then choose the best one...and then torture the rest of them forever. Why would you do such a thing?

        February 4, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
  9. Primewonk

    From AIG's website (Ham's parent organization):

    The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

    Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
    The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
    The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
    The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
    The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
    ---------------

    How the heck do you debate against that kind of idiocy? They automatically exclude and deny all evidence that disagrees with a literal YEC.

    That may be a great way to practice religion, but it sure as hell isn't how we role in science.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • AthensGuy

      Dude, I almost canceled my car insurance because of you...

      February 4, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
  10. Lance

    Can't we all just agree to disagree with Ham.

    Seriously. This whole exercise offers no benefit. No one in the world will change their opinions of how the world started (what Ham is arguing) or how life came to be on this planet (what Nye is arguing) because of this debate. The whole creationism vs. evolution conflict doesn't even make sense. It's like the Yankees vs. the Bulls in the Super Bowl.

    Example: I believe in a god. I believe it is the creator of this universe and whatever may exist beyond it. I also accept Darwinian evolution as valid. I accept the results of carbon dating and the study of evolutionary biology. What I don't believe or accept is anything that is historically proven to be myths perpetrated by the power hungry of our past and present.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • epoxide

      Don't be so sure. People can change their opinion after being exposed to information they were previously unaware of. Any open-minded person surely does so all the time.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      "The whole creationism vs. evolution conflict doesn't even make sense. It's like the Yankees vs. the Bulls in the Super Bowl."

      You are not the first person to make this analogy today. It is an incorrect one. Creationism says that all humans alive today descended from two people, Adam and Eve, and that these two people did not have ancestors. Evolution says something quite different. Creationism and evolution are in direct conflict and CAN be debated together.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      One more point. No, I don't believe we can agree to disagree with Ham while he insists on introducing creationism into science classes.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • michaellocher

      I'd love a world where the religious embraced their various traditions in a way which didn't infringe, dangerously, upon the intellectual progress of the civilized world – but sadly, here in the US, that's not the case.

      When people like Ken Ham stop trying to inject a 3000-year old oral creation tradition from a particular nomadic desert tribe into science classrooms, we can call a ceasefire.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
    • jellyroll713

      I understand why you think that this whole exercise is pointless. If you assume that Bill Nye's objective is to convince Mr. Ham that young earth creationism is a logical fallacy, then yes, it is pointless. But I can guarantee you that is not Nye's objective. These painful and awkward debates are for the express purpose of showing that dogma is a tool used by those in denial. It's to demonstrate the destructiveness resorting to magical thinking when science (the combined human knowledge of the natural world) up-ends what we thought was real. It's to show that Mr. Ham is not an authority on anything real. He's just a man so lost in his own delusion that he'll go to any length necessary and defy logic by any means to defend his preconceived notions. We can't sweep these people under the rug. We need to get them to come to the podium and defend their fallacies to the world. Only then can we teach why living in reality is better than constructing a fake world that conforms to our comfortable ideals.

      February 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
  11. Someone

    Actually, one thing that is scary about this – in a way Mr. Ham is trying to use science to justify the existence of a supreme being. Other societies have used science in this way – many have had bad consequences......

    February 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • epoxide

      The bias of creationists is clear in that they ignore all of what we have learned in various fields of science – including biology, chemistry, physics, and geology – to shove in their pre-determined conclusion and try to make the evidence fit their model, rather than the other way around (making the model fit the evidence).

      February 4, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
  12. JC

    This type of leap is what is so wrong with this theory: "If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life"

    February 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • Serg

      This statement is precisely why nobody should take Ham seriously.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
  13. NorthVanCan

    "Evolutionary belief system" ?
    Whaaaaat ?
    If you think evolution is based on belief you'v already lost your marbles .
    Evolution is an indisputable fact of reality easily proven and agreed upon be real scientists .
    Ken….you are out to lunch.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
  14. Pey

    I believe that it also should be taught that man was created from corn. I lived in Guatemala and that is what the Mayan holy book the Popol Vuh taught. "After that they began to talk about the creation and the making of our first mother and father; of yellow corn and of white corn they made their flesh; of cornmeal dough they made the arms and the legs of man. Only dough of corn meal went into the flesh of our first fathers, the four men, who were created. [...]"
    So if this idiot wants to teach people that man was created in a few days and woman from the rib of a man, then I say teach that we were also created from corn!

    February 4, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
    • Tom

      Absolutely correct. If creationism was true, there would be only one version. Instead, every religious group (all Abrahamic religions being one group) has their own widely varying explanation. This is why it's simply not true.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
  15. Common Sense

    what I have noticed among many atheists is there rabid insistence there is no God. I asked why to some of them....Further questioning seems to indicate that God may not like their lifestyle, and their absolute refusal to bend the knee. I have been both an atheist/agnostic, and a Christian. There is a God, whether you like it or not.....whether we were created or else God began the evolutionistic mechanism to bring us all about, one thing I do know...all the atheistic pontificating cannot, repeat, cannot explain the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ...It is to Him we ALL will bend the knee, not because He is brutal, but because to live your life with acknowledging His transcendence is willful, deliberate arrogance....

    February 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
    • michaellocher

      I'm glad that this belief brings you comfort.

      Moving on...

      February 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      My knee remains unbent. You are not the first person today to claim there is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. So far no one has been able to provide any.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
      • Common Sense

        I thought about debating you on the existence of Jesus, but decided not to....The evidence is overwhelming for His resurrection, but most will not accept it.....I could name 50 books written by scholars, scientists, reformed atheists, etc, who set out to prove once, and for all, there is not a shred of truth to His claims, who then became convinced by the evidence, and received Him as Lord and God......You can debate all you want. What I have just stated is an absolute fact....sorry if truth gets in the way.....

        February 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • snowboarder

          there is no "evidence" of anyone's resurrection, including this jesus character.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          There is barely evidence of Jesus and none for a resurrection.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Snow

          books... written by 1st century goat farmers and fishermen.. enough said.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I didn't ask for evidence for the existence of Jesus (although this is suspect as well). I asked for the evidence of his resurrection. Please, tell me, in your own words, what the evidence is. I don't even care if you Google it and paraphrase. I just want to know what you think the evidence is.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • tony

      That's a lot of absolute rubbish for just one posting.

      Did I say that rabidly? Or was that just name calling instead of justification for your point of view?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • Serg

      Nothing but projection and supposition in your entire post...which belies your choice of handle.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • Steel On Target

      " their absolute refusal to bend the knee"

      Well YOUR god sounds like an @ S S H O L E and I'm not generally in the business of bowing down to @ S S H O L E S. So add that to your list of reasons.

      "Your God: Bow down to me but......I do love you!!"
      That sounds like an abusive relationship which I would encourage you to leave.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • Common Sense

        you make me sad.....not because of your comments, but at the apparent anger in your life at God.....I really do feel for you......just posting ugliness gets you nowhere.....I hope you find peace in this life.....

        February 4, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
    • tony

      We need more "Glory" and "Prayer".

      No effort or committment involved. Looks and sounds good, but doesn't cost anything. Saves all that going out an actually helping made this world a better place.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • snowboarder

      the philosopher the jesus character is likely based upon has been a moldering corpse for two thousand years.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • Curious

      So, for all children created by accident, because they were created by accident, "there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority."? Why oppose abortion, then?

      February 4, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  16. David G

    He says he has accepted the authority of the bible which he believes comes from God, and that he rejects the work of man. OK. He would have to acknowledge of course that he needs to read an interpret that book, and he may not get it perfectly right. I too have accepted an authority which is open for "reading". It is called "the Universe". I believe it comes from God if one exists. I also reject the words of men (in the form of 2000 old writings too). And I would also acknowledge I need to interpret "the book" and reach my own understanding about what I read there means. (With help from others welcome of course). So – it comes down to the fact that we accept two different books as authority. He picks the bible. I pick the universe. If only one comes from God, which do YOU think it is?

    February 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
  17. Dave

    "general censorship against creationists" ???? Unfortunately we haven't figured out a way to censor stupid !

    February 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
  18. Someone

    As Asimov put it in his short story Reason – "You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reasoning – if you pick the proper postulates."

    February 4, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
  19. EBenedict

    Creationism – the ultimate stupid stupid thinking process !!!!!!!!! Not even worth debating. This is 2014 and Galileo has been dead for 372 years. So......let's get real.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
  20. mike

    The debate as to whether God exists will never be resolved.

    Atheists should be respectful of believers and beievers should be respectful of atheists.

    February 4, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • epoxide

      Perhaps not, but whether or not creationism is a valid science is something that's been settled for ages, except among the scientifically illiterate and the intellectually dishonest.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
      • Bart

        "Ages"..? No, I'd give the rise of evolution about a good 50+ year history now as commonly accepted as sound. (The Scopes trial was only in 1925.) One recent Gallup poll showed that 46% of Americans polled believed in pure creationism and another 32% in divinely guided evolution. That's far from being widely accepted.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Barcs

          That's false. Gallop polls don't indicate reality as the majority of people are never polled in any area. Fundamentalist (literal creation believers) is below 30% and declining.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
    • michaellocher

      Respectful? Absolutely. I'd certainly never insist that scientific theories of cosmology, the origin of life, and the evolution of species be imposed upon any given church's Sunday School class, or weekly sermon.

      Similarly, I have no tolerance for that which is objectively unscientific being hawked in science classes. NO tolerance. None. Zilch.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
    • EBenedict

      Science will prove that God is a figment of the imagination of weak people. That day is coming soon.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
    • tony

      I bet you respect the beliefs of the Taliban and Al Queda.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
      • mike

        No, i don't. I'm an atheist. The point of my post was that In order for believing and non-believing Amercans to get along with one another, we should be respectful of one another.

        February 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @mike, i assume you are only referring to your religion that people should be respectful of. otherwise we would have to start teaching everyone's religious creation myths in science class.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
    • Sue

      Let's keep people separate from ideas. People deserve respect. Ideas do not deserve respect; they need critical examination.

      The ideas of mainstream religions such as Christianity and Islam are obviously flawed ideas, and should be criticised – and rejected. Respect is simply not appropriate for them.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
    • Steel On Target

      That would be the case if "believers" didn't go around trying to make changes to science & education, legal rights & laws and constantly insulting atheists by calling them amoral & going to hell.

      February 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.